The establishment of Estonia’s independent statehood took the political and cultural freedom of Estonians to an entirely new level, yet on the other hand it required the reinterpretation of fundamental ideas for developing society. This also meant the reassessment of nationalist ideas and of their importance. Estonian independent statehood was seen as the guarantor of the survival of Estonian culture and the Estonian people. Attempts were made to find means for how to better assure the development of Estonian culture.
Like elsewhere in Europe of that time, nationalism and its promotion formed one important aspect of building up and developing the educational system of independent Estonia. Two congresses for the comprehensive discussion of various themes regarding nationalist education were organised in Estonia in the period between the two world wars. The first was held in Tartu on 2–3 January 1927 and the second was held on 2–3 January 1935 in Tallinn. The organisation of a third congress was also planned for 1940 but it was cancelled due to drastic changes in the prevailing political situation.
The aim of this article is to analyse the models for the congresses on nationalist education, their ideas and models from abroad, their reception in society, and their effect on school life. The article examines the organisation of the congresses, and their speakers and participants, focusing on the topics that resounded there, and on changes in the extent and points of emphasis of the congresses.
These congresses were connected to one another by the Estonian Eugenics and Genealogy Society as their organiser. Views from the field of eugenics, which were widespread elsewhere in Europe of that time, resounded at the congress of 1927 and dominated in 1935, even though eugenics, which primarily belongs to the field of medical science, had little to do with education and upbringing.
A great deal of public interest, a large number of participants that included many interest groups, and the formulation of ideas and ideals regarding nationalist education characterised the congress of 1927. Debate between the larger left- and rightwing political parties accompanied the discussions that took place at the congress and dominated the reports on the congress in the press. The Socialist Party, which had the most seats in the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) of that time, reproached the right-wingers for using the label of nationalism and demanded social reforms. The right-wingers, especially the Rahvaerakond (People’s Party), protested against left-wing agitation in schools and cast doubt on whether socialists could be nationalistically disposed at all.
The congress of 1935 focused primarily on questions related to demography and population policy. Practical means were sought for channelling the development of various fields of activity. Under the conditions of the authoritarian regime that prevailed in Estonia at that time, political debate was missing from congress presentations and press reports on the congress. Additionally, numerous presentations were cancelled in protest against the prevailing domestic political situation. For various reasons, the number of participants and the representation of interest groups was also smaller than at the first congress. Teachers from rural schools, who at that time numbered considerably more than teachers from city schools, were left out of the congress altogether because teaching had already started in the countryside at the time that the congress took place. All this caused dissonance because a great deal was said at the congress about the advantages of rural life in particular. The congress was criticised in the press for the one-sidedness of its themes and their superficial treatment – a great deal was undertaken but the working format of the congress did not provide room for delving deeper into topics. The reputation of the speakers was yet another problem at the 2nd congress in particular. The search for those who were to blame for the declining birth rate and the spread of bad manners, which took place in the course of discussions at the congress, prompted the public to ask whether the verbose accusers had any moral right for making such proclamations.
The primary models for the ideas expounded at the congresses were Finland from among Estonia’s nearest neighbours and France from among Western European countries for the social-political subsidies and awards that had been put into effect there. Certain aspects of the social policies of fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany were also considered as models at the second congress. Nevertheless, both the childlessness tax and the marriage loan were never applied in practice in Estonia.
At the congress of 1927, the family was seen as the primary agent of nationalist upbringing. A series of resolutions was adopted at the congress, from which some ideas made their way into school curricula, yet no important practical measures followed. Regarding the introduction of the teaching of national defence in schools, the congress was above all part of an overall process. The Estonianisation of names was given momentum more broadly in society.
By 1935, the understanding of school as an institution of upbringing had expanded and thereby also the understanding of school as one of the most important institutions for carrying out nationalist upbringing. While nationalism was previously related to mostly self-evidently in schools and the influence of leftists on schools was seen as the main political problem, the more vigorous development of nationalism was considered necessary in the 1930s, especially after the coup of 1934. State interests and the raising of ‘good citizens’ became key words in legislation.
The 2nd congress aspired to adopt a more concrete and practical orientation. Themes such as social policy were discussed, particularly the promotion of public health. The government thereafter dealt with these themes. The discussion provided the impetus for the formation of a commission of governmental cabinet ministers. A six-year plan for promoting public health was called into being. A great deal of legislation was adopted or amended, such as legislation for protecting mothers and children, welfare legislation, and sterilisation legislation. A child protection foundation was founded. Considering the role and influence of the Estonian Eugenics and Genealogy Society in organising these congresses and in their work, a connection can be seen here between the 2nd nationalist upbringing congress and social-political changes that followed it.
Although upbringing was prominent in the name of these congresses, it is characteristic that educational questions remained in the background. The issue of minority peoples was primarily delved into in the context of school at the 2nd congress of nationalist upbringing. The need was seen for changing how cultural self-administrations were organised, equalising the educational level of schools where the language of instruction was Estonian and schools where instruction was given in other languages, and inculcating loyalty in minority peoples through the school system in particular. In practice, educational literature in foreign languages was developed to a small extent while more significant changes were not made in the work of cultural self-administrations.